Laserfiche WebLink
Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN <br /> Creation of an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) facility, relying on unrestricted <br />irrigation permits and water the EAA is allowed to pump pursuant to Section 1.14(h) of <br />the EAA Act to fill and maintain the ASR. This concept protected springflow by providing <br />water stored in the ASR for recharge during drought conditions. This resulted in <br />increased volumes of Aquifer water flowing to the springs at Comal and San Marcos <br />thereby supporting the Covered Species. <br /> A combination package incorporating selected Type II recharge structures to enhance <br />recharge, a voluntary irrigation pumping reduction program to reduce agricultural <br />pumping during drought, land stewardship activities including watershed management <br />for enhanced surface flows, and the use of the SAWS Twin Oaks ASR facility in <br />southern Bexar County. <br /> A Recharge and Recirculation program that places water from available EAA permits <br />into recharge structures; recovers the rge and recirculates it to the <br />recharge structures; and allows the water to remain in the Aquifer until specified <br />springflow triggers occur. <br /> A Trade-Off package in Bexar County using available EAA permits and EAA Act § <br />1.14(h) water to fill and maintain an ASR developed by the EARIP; Stage IV pumping <br />floor at 340,000 ac-ft/yr; recovery during drought of stored water for delivery to major <br />distribution centers in Bexar County; with targeted storage and recovery maintaining <br />springflow at both springs. <br /> Trade-Offs in Comal and Hays Counties, using non-Edwards sources identified in the <br />initial 2011 Region L Water Plan, permanent retirement of Edwards Permits, Stage IV <br />pumping floor at 340,000 ac-ft/yr, and new distribution centers connecting source water <br />with New Braunfels and San Marcos. <br />These measures, as analyzed by HDR Engineering, Inc., generally did not result in flow levels <br />greater than those achievable through the measures in the HCP at the scale examined. The <br />preliminary cost estimates associated with these measures were considered impractical, <br />ranging into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and had potential regulatory, technical, or <br />political impediments to their implementation. An evaluation of these alternatives can be found <br />in HDR 2011 and are summarized in Figure 1-3 below. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1-17 <br /> <br />